Karnataka Hate Speech Bill Sparks Row: BJP Terms Move ‘Dangerous for Democracy’

The decision of Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot to refer the Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025 to President Droupadi Murmu has triggered sharp political debate in the state, with the Karnataka unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) strongly backing the move. Karnataka BJP State President B. Y. Vijayendra described the proposed law as flawed , legally ambiguous , and a potential threat to democracy , arguing that it could be misused to silence dissent rather than curb genuine hate crimes. The Bill was passed during the winter session of the legislature held in Belagavi in December 2025, but instead of granting assent, the Governor reserved it for presidential consideration, a constitutional provision used when legislation is seen as raising broader legal or national implications.

Speaking in Shivamogga, Vijayendra accused the Congress-led government under Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of pushing the Bill through without adequate debate and using it as a political tool to suppress opposition voices. He cited reported instances where activists allegedly faced police notices or restrictions even before the Bill became law, raising concerns over premature enforcement and due process . According to the Bill’s text, hate speech includes any form of communication spoken, written, visual, symbolic, or electronic intended to incite hatred or hostility against an individual or group. Critics argue that such a wide definition may lead to overreach , especially if not clearly distinguished from existing criminal provisions dealing with incitement and public order.

The Governor’s referral means the final decision now rests with the President, who may grant assent, withhold it, or return the Bill for reconsideration. Legal observers note that such referrals often occur when questions of constitutional validity or possible conflict with central laws arise. If eventually enacted, the legislation could still face judicial review , particularly regarding freedom of speech protections. Meanwhile, the state government has defended the Bill as necessary to curb rising communal tensions and prevent violence fueled by inflammatory rhetoric, arguing that stronger safeguards are required in the digital age.